Whatever the rules may be, the reality is that the IESG sets the rules
for I-Ds, and the combination of the tools team (for automated
submission) and the secretariat (for manual submission) enforce the rules.
(I personally find Heather's point that it will make everyone life
easier if the same formats apply to the various streams to be
well-taken. Which implies thinking about the stream input implications
as well as the RFC output implications.)
Yours,
Joel
On 4/22/2012 2:14 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> At 09:55 22-04-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> True, but irrelevant. The RFC Editor does not get to set the I-D
>> format. It's not clear who does, but there's no need to push a
>> constitutional issue; if the RFC Editor changes the format for RFCs,
>> one hopes that the correct I* body will change the format for I-Ds.
>> There isn't really an I-D format. There are the guidelines to authors of
> I-Ds ( http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.html ). It seems that
> nobody polices I-Ds. It might be futile anyway unless you want to take
> action in cases where someone obfuscates information relating to
> authorship. The only problem is IPR.
>> Regards,
> -sm
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>